Car Review: 2013 Audi A6 2.0T Premium

By David Booth, Postmedia News

Originally published: November 8, 2012

First, the good news. Plunking the Volkswagen Group’s ubiquitous 2.0-litre turbocharged four into the engine bay of large luxury sedan does little to blunt the performance of this gem of an engine.

This, the most widely used of all of VW’s powerplants, is really the best engine the company makes, punching above its weight in virtually every category of engine evaluation. It feels more powerful than its 211 horsepower would seem to indicate. The 258 pound-feet of maximum torque is more than that of many a naturally aspirated V6; indeed, before Audi decided to supercharge its mid-sized V6, it was the turbocharged 2.0T that felt spunkier. Perhaps, most importantly, at least to this particular evaluation, Audi has massaged much of the noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) out of an engine format — four cylinders have harmonics not found in V6, inline 6 and V8 engines — not known for creamy sophistication. Indeed, while others (BMW, for instance, in its newly released 528) have found more horsepower from their 2.0-litre turbos, none have yet matched Audi’s version for lack of vibration and grumbly noises at high speed.

It’s an important attribute in the A6.

A4 intenders might accept a little NVH as the tradeoff for a lower entry price into the luxury segment, but one presumes that by the time one reaches the A6’s price point, any harshness from the engine department would be considered a major faux pas. And there is virtually none from the A6 2.0T. Oh, Yours Truly, surely a princess-and-the-pea spoiled rotten elitist, might have mumbled something about the somewhat droning exhaust note of the four-cylinder. But no one else who drove the car — including one experienced autojournalist — could even tell, at least by the engine’s comportment, that this A6 was sporting anything other than its traditional 3.0L V6. Compliments don’t come much higher than not noticing the absence of two pistons and eight valves.

And, driven in the semi-stately manner to which one presumes large luxury sedans are accustomed, there’s not much in this A6 that might alert the driver to its diminished capacity. Yes, the 2.0T is 1.4 seconds slower to 100 kilometres an hour, but that’s only when the throttle is to the floor and the revs at the limit. In normal driving, the perceived performance difference is actually much smaller.

The reason for the 2-0T’s comparatively stellar performance is right in Audi’s spec sheet. Yes, the 3.0T boasts 99 more horsepower, but those don’t kick in until a heady 5,500 rpm, while the four’s peak power is available as low as 4,300 rpm. Even more telling is the torque comparison. The 3.0T’s 325 pound-feet don’t kick in until 2,900 rpm, whereas the 2.0’s 258 lb-ft arrive just off idle, at 1,500 rpm. In other words, the bigger engine’s performance advantage is mostly in the upper reaches of its powerband, a worthwhile attribute in a young hooligan’s car such as Volkswagen’s Golf R (which I can attest is fun to wring out), but far less important in a luxury bolide such as the A6. Indeed, one could hand over the 2.0T’s keys to an unsuspecting prospect and, until he or she had to pass a long semi, that driver might never notice that this particular A6 is lesser in any way. I should note as well that helping to mask any power shortcoming from the little four is Audi’s slick-shifting eight-speed automatic that always seems to be in the right gear.

OK, so that was the good news; now for the bad. I’m not sure that, other than the price (the 2.0T starts at $52,500, while the 3.0T version of the A6 retails for $59,800), losing the two cylinders is worth it. Peruse that same spec sheet further and you’ll find that the A6 2.0T boasts a fuel economy of 7.1 litres per 100 kilometres on the highway, while the V6 claims 7.4 L/100 km. In the city, the numbers are 9.4 and 11.3. Oh, I get why Audi (like all car companies) wants to offer models with better fuel economy, even with seemingly minuscule advantages: Upcoming fuel consumption and emissions standards around the world are such that you have to at least offer something frugal. But, from a purely personal economic viewpoint, such fuel cost savings are relatively tiny.

According to those official figures, in a typical annual 12,000-km combined rural/urban driving, the 2.0T owner might expect to save a little more than 100 bucks compared with the 3.0T; young Tiffany is obviously not going to Harvard on the difference.

In real-world driving, you might save more or less money depending on where and how you drive. Cruising the highway at a buck-twenty, for instance, I found less difference between the two cars than the Transport Canada numbers would indicate, with the 2.0T averaging 7.3 L/100 km while the V6 eeked out 7.6. Both numbers are impressive and the 2.0T is the more frugal, but the numbers would seem to indicate that the number of speeds in the transmission (both A6s sport eight-speeds in their slushboxes) and slippery aerodynamics are more important to highway fuel economy than the displacement of the engine.

In town, the difference was more dramatic, with the 2.0T recording a 12.9 L/100 km average while the 3.0T sucked back 13.9. Neither number is close to the Transport Canada figures, leading one to suspect that a) I have a truly heavy foot and b) in town, at least, the fuel consumption advantage of jettisoning pistons is a little more noticeable.

The bottom line, however, remains that putting smaller engines into big cars promises more of an advantage to the car company than the consumer. Indeed, other than the surprisingly large reduction in the base price, the advantages of downsizing to Audi’s smaller engine would seem fairly minimal. On the other hand, if you do decide to downsize, you probably won’t even notice the loss of the two pistons.